Since Dr. Jack Kevorkian admitted on national
television to performing euthanasia , the debate about assisted death has received renewed attention.
But to credit renewed discussion to Dr. Kevorkian is to encourage his
irresponsible behavior. In fact, debate about his decisions to videotape
the death and to subsequently appear on 60 Minutes threatens to overshadow
any meaningful national policy discussion of assisted death. The irony is
that national policy debate is Dr. Kevorkian's stated goal for having
assisted or carried out the deaths of over seventy people.

Dr. Kevorkian is right in arguing that we need a national debate, but it is
a debate that is already taking place. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on
the constitutionality of assisted suicide, recognizing individual interests
in deciding how, rather than whether, they will die. In their decision,
however, the justices ruled that those individual interests are outweighed
by society's need to prevent abuse of assisted suicide.

But in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision, many have argued that
we must do better for people who need help to exercise their decisions about
how they will die. It is true, as critics of assisted suicide say, that
patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and to
sufficient pain relief. Neither of these should be given up in a rush to
embrace assisted suicide. But in cases where there is no treatment to
refuse and adequate pain relief cannot be achieved--and there will be such
cases--individuals deserve to determine how they will cross the threshold
between life and death.

A majority of Americans favor the individual right to assisted
suicide -- depending on the poll, anywhere from just over 50 percent to 70 percent. Because the Court's decision has effectively shifted the debate
from the federal courts to the states, now members of the public should have
a chance to exercise their voices.

Oregon: the death state?

Letting legislatures grapple with this issue allows states the opportunity
to act as laboratories of the democratic process but adds its own
complications. Oregon has already become the first state to legalize
assisted suicide, and only strict residency rules in their law have
prevented an influx of patients wanting assistance in death.

As more states
follow Oregon's lead, states will be categorized into those that will allow
assisted suicide and those that will not. Patients will be forced to
travel, to leave behind their loved ones, their physicians and all the rest
of the people, places and things they should have around them as they cross
the threshold between life and death.

Those too frail or sick to travel will be barred from exercising their
rights, thus those who most need to seek assistance
are barred from it. Also, a situation is created where a right is enjoyed or
withheld by no more than a function of geography.

The messenger shoots himself in the foot

The debate about assisted death will not be over soon, and will and should
take place at both the state and national levels. But instead of
encouraging and informing that debate, behavior like Dr. Kevorkian's forces
the legal system to render premature judgments about issues that are largely
undecided. Any court proceeding against Dr. Kevorkian for engaging in
euthanasia is sure to turn attention away from the debate around assisted
death and squarely onto Dr. Kevorkian himself. His is a case of the
messenger confusing himself with the message, and in the process undermining
the very interests he claims to promote-those of people who face
unacceptably painful deaths.